I’m not a witch who hates puppies

November 2, 2010November 2, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Elections are the talk of the internets today; but since it’s too late for new messages and polls haven’t closed yet, everything before about 8:00 p.m. EDT tonight is really just mindless chatter.

Water cooler talk this morning seems to center around the Republican chances for taking the Senate, and that inevitably turns to the campaign of Christine O’Donnell in Delaware – and you really can’t have that discussion without talking about the now-famous “I’m not a witch” ad:

Despite the criticism and ridicule O’Donnell received for this ad, the message was pretty appropriate. With national Democrats and media outlets lambasting her past television appearances and outspoken commentary on morality issues, O’Donnell was in danger of being defined by the environment not only as an extreme candidate, but as a truly bizarre person. So she targeted the infamous clip that was circulating where she talks about her dalliances with witchcraft and tried to shift focus on the “real issues” of the campaign.

The problem wasn’t in this message, but in her very serious, isn’t-this-election-just-the-most-important-thing-in-human-history tone. Michael Steele did a pretty good job of this in his 2006 bid for a Maryland Senate seat:

The line from Steele’s ad that had everyone talking? “By the way, I love puppies.” It’s silly, but positive (and certainly not defensive, like “I’m not a witch”). Steele went up to Delaware to help O’Donnell campaign, but maybe he should have had a discussion about diffusing negative ads.

IT’S A TRAP: NBC/WSJ poll says GOP is in trouble

November 1, 2010November 1, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll – the one that showed the Republicans with big edges in preference among likely voters – is a warning flag for the GOP. (Of note, it was NBC’s Today show, thanks to Chuck Todd, who hit on this issue this morning. As much as I’ve bashed them, you have to give credit where credit is due.)

Most media outlets are pointing out the big advantages Republicans enjoy. Voters are saying they would prefer Republicans in charge of Congress, they don’t much care for Nancy Pelosi, and they don’t buy the argument that the incoming class would hearken back to the days of Dubya. But buried in most of the coverage is a potential looming problem: differences in opinion among voters about what their votes mean.

Check out the bottom of page 12 of the poll results. Republicans and self-identified Tea Partiers are thinking about this election as a chance to reign in the federal government to its constitutionally defined boundaries; independents are more concerned with jobs and the economy. The Ackbarian trap here lies in how Republicans craft their messages once the business of campaigning turns into the business of governing.

Those two items – sticking to the Constitution and helping the economy – are not mutually exclusive, but the response to this question does indicate a differing value system. The easy strategy is to pay attention to which audience is receiving certain communications and tailor messages accordingly; as is often the case, the easy strategy is not the best.

The simple fact is that basing policy solely on a 225-year-old piece of paper doesn’t do anything to translate to an independent voter how that policy will help him or her or the country as a whole. Frankly, the argument sounds like a crutch. (“Look, it would be nice to give everyone, but this document – which actually said buying people like you would buy cattle was ok until 1808 – says we can’t do it. Sorry!”) However, despite the media intimations to the contrary, the idea that our government has gone well beyond the limits that were set out for it – and that doing so has actually caused more problems than it has solved – is quite an intellectual conclusion, and suggests that these are pretty savvy political observers. These activists will support Constitutional policies without someone spelling out why those policies are constitutional.

Unfortunately, politicians seem to have trouble understanding that keeping a base engaged need not be pandering, and engaging the political center needn’t involve moderating one’s beliefs. Through that cynical view, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll seems to forecast Republican political gains tomorrow followed by confusion on messaging over policy priorities in 2011. (That also cuts out an interesting role for tea party activists as the conscience of the Republican party.)

To sell their economic policies on November 3 and beyond, the GOP will have to get smart on talking to the center from the right. That they have been able to do so successfully in the past year speaks to their probable success in 2010; how well they do so in the next year will decide their success in 2012.

Crist’s cross won’t make Meek jump, jump…

October 30, 2010October 30, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Earlier this week, the intrigue surrounding the Florida Senate race involved Bill Clinton’s behind-the-scenes maneuvering to get Kendrick Meek out of the race. Now, it turns out, Charlie Crist was behind the whole thing – and tried to seal the deal by offering a cross as a gift.

Though 2010 is not a good year to have details of back-room political deals come out on the weekend before election day, Meek was so far out of the race it didn’t figure to hurt him. But the inclusion of Crist in this bizarre dance – and his odd choice of Christian imagery – may just seal the deal on the race. Rubio enjoys a near-20 point advantage in most polls, and has been trending up since August.

The question now becomes whether the stench of political horsetrading (especially with America’s honorary “first black President” trying to convince a black candidate to stand aside so a well-tanned-but-still-white candidate could defeat a Latino) will depress turnout among Democrats on Tuesday.

Slurpublicans

October 28, 2010October 28, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ 1 Comment

This week, Tammy Bruce riffed on a line that President Obama has been using to characterize Congressional Republicans as sitting back, “sipping a Slurpee,” while Democrats did the hard work to advance the change we could believe in.

CBS News’s Mark Knoller reported on the recurring imagery earlier this month:

Though he doesn’t mention any Slurpee-sipping Republicans by name, his rhetoric suggests an image of Senate and House Minority Leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, dressed casually (perhaps in shorts and sneakers) with a couple of Big Gulp cups in their hands, sipping on 7-Eleven’s sweet and glacial libation… Mr. Obama clearly thinks Republicans are elitist, but the line wouldn’t be as funny if he said they were sipping Chardonnay or a Mint Julep.

For all his faults as a politician, Obama and his team are no slouches when crafting imagery. So as dead-on as Knoller is about the evolution of the talking point, that explanation of it as an accusation of elitism is a little too simplistic. The line wouldn’t just be less funny if Obama subbed in Chardonnay, it would be less effective at delivering the message he wants to get across. There’s actually a much more impressive slur at work here.

Think about 7-Eleven, and think beyond the racial stereotypes that a certain Vice President may harbor. Besides the Slurpees in question, 7-Eleven delicacies include assorted snacks of dubious nutritional value, week-old taquitos, and something that looks like the result of a drunken one-night-stand between a hot dog and a hamburger. (“Hot dog? Yeah, it’s Hamburger. We need to talk…) It isn’t exactly a bastion of elitism.

And the driving-the-car-into-the-ditch metaphor so often used to illustrate the Republican stewardship of the economy doesn’t paint the Republicans as elitist. In fact, it paints them as incompetent – a much better message for President so easily painted as aloof who is talking to a base who gave him their votes in part as a protest of the perceived simplicity of his predecessor.

That insult layered into the President’s pop culture reference like so much cheese on a plastic tray full of stale nachos? He isn’t calling Republicans elitist.

He’s calling them white trash.

Why can’t Chuck start a business?

October 26, 2010October 26, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The Institute for Justice hit one out of the park with this video, which is one of the few attempts at online humor that is both effective at delivering a message and really funny. One of DC’s most philosophically consistent defenders of individual liberties, IJ just released a series of studies on the effects local governments can have on the business climate, even as elected officials try to “fix this unemployment problem.”

Clooney stays on message

October 26, 2010October 26, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

During an interview on Bill Maher’s Real Time, George Clooney spoke about an issue on which he has been notoriously vocal, the genocide in Darfur. Maher tried to turn the discussion to politics, complaining that conservatives lack the empathy to care about issues like this. In the video clip, Clooney interrupts him and runs through a laundry list of people from the center-right who have helped the cause.

With Election Day a week away (ten days or so when this first aired), it’s refreshing to hear someone from one side say something nice about the other. It’s especially refreshing when one considers that to do so, Clooney had to contradict the host of the show and and audience ready to accept that conservatives are small-minded and selfish (as indicated in the applause after Maher’s comment in the clip linked above).

More than that, though, it’s good PR strategy for Clooney, who must have understood two major points:

His message is not about the upcoming elections, and it’s not about conservatives vs. liberals or Democrats vs. Republicans. That may be the discussion Maher wanted to have, but it’s not the discussion Clooney wanted or needed to have to advance the messages he was trying to convey. If he had been trapped in that discussion, it would have taken away from what he wanted to say about Darfur.
Even worse, getting into that discussion would be a move to reduce the Sudan genocide into a right vs. left issue – no different from government health care, tax policy, or social security reform, with clear battle lines in Washington, DC. So if the Republicans take over this November – or in November 2012, or November 2014, or in any November before the Sudan is a stable, functioning nation – Clooney wants his issue to be above the political fray so that it can count on Congressional champions regardless of who controls what.

The ease with which Clooney rattled off center-right politicians who had been active on the issue indicates that Clooney was prepared for this type of inquiry, appreciative for the help he had received in his efforts, and (most important) clear in his vision of the issue and his mission.

Just like he was when he and Brad Pitt robbed that casino:

How one Florida Gator scored a PR win

September 8, 2010September 8, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The University of Florida looked putrid in a victory over Miami of Ohio on Saturday (college football is the only sport where a 22-point victory can be called putrid with a straight face). Their offense could not get into a rhythm, in part because newly converted center Mike Pouncey kept snapping the ball down around quarterback John Brantley’s feet. Since Brantley, like most Division I-A quarterbacks, throws with his arm, this was one of the big storylines on Sunday.

On Monday, ESPN Radio’s Scott Van Pelt reported something unusual: Pouncey was available for media interviews. According to Van Pelt, Sports Information Directors tend to shield student athletes who have had rough games from press interviews. But Pouncey calmly answered questions and took the blame for the team’s disappointing performance. And he didn’t give ESPN the exclusive, also sharing his mea culpa with Florida papers like the Miami (of Florida) Herald:

Showing the maturity of a valued team leader, Florida center Mike Pouncey took the blame for his offense’s unflattering start to the 2010 season… After the game, Pouncey said he planned to arrive at UF’s football facility “early in the morning” Sunday to begin correcting his shotgun snaps. When asked whether his hands were injured, Pouncey said they were not; rather, he said the ball was slipping off his fingertips.

So what will the announcers talk about next week? Probably the fact that Pouncey is a stand-up guy. Sure, there will be questions about Pouncey’s technique, but none about his intelligence, commitment, or fortitude. If he keeps snapping worm burners, the assumption will be that he should return to his original position at guard and that he simply doesn’t have the physical ability to snap the ball, despite trying his hardest. There would not be loud whispers that he’s psyched out by the pressure of performing.

(And it’s worth noting that Pouncey will probably get the lion’s share of attention this week – taking some of the heat off the rest of the underperforming offense and endearing himself to his teammates even more.)

It helps that Pouncey has a track record of success to point to. More than that, though, the way he handled his failures honestly and proactively will win him the benefit of the doubt heading into next week’s game – and the best chance to turn those failures into successes.

Winning on Iraq

September 1, 2010September 1, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ 3 Comments

Last night’s Presidential address on Iraq was written and shaped, in part, by John Boehner. Boehner re-drew the rhetorical battle lines on Iraq, neutering the administration looking for a win heading into campaign season.

Throughout August, Boehner and Republicans have been talking about Iraq with a fairly consistent message of thanks to the troops for their service in Iraq, crediting them for victory. It’s not a controversial message, but one they beat the drum on pretty well. That made it difficult for the Obama Administration to give the speech they probably would have liked to give last night.

Did you notice (as Politico’s Roger Simon did) that the thrust of the speech had little to do with the Iraq war itself? When the President spoke on Iraq, he echoed Boehner’s talking points in speaking about the troops’ resolve. The final half of the speech delved into future military strategy, and then wended into domestic policy in an awkward attempt to tie policy consensus to support for the troops.

In a vacuum, a skilled orator like Obama might have claimed credit for ending the conflict started by his predecessor – a tack he has used repeatedly for his economic policies – and called for unity after a long national nightmare. There might have even been a few digs at the rationale behind the war in the first place, Easter eggs for the far left supporters who will be crucial campaign activists in the coming elections.

Instead, Obama gave a speech which reads like it could have been given by John Boehner.

UPDATE: I meant to include this earlier, and just plum forgot. To get a sense of what the speech may have looked like in the imagined vacuum, check out the opening of the email Organizing for America sent around last night over the President’s signature:

Tonight marks the end of the American combat mission in Iraq.

As a candidate for this office, I pledged to end this war responsibly. And, as President, that is what I am doing.

Since I became Commander-in-Chief, we’ve brought home nearly 100,000 U.S. troops. We’ve closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of our bases… Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest — it is in our own. Our nation has paid a huge price to put Iraq’s future in the hands of its people. We have sent our men and women in uniform to make enormous sacrifices. We have spent vast resources abroad in the face of several years of recession at home.

IT’S A TRAP: The Ground Zero Mosque

August 17, 2010August 17, 2010 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

On the Today show this morning, Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks sat down to talk about their new book, Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto. FreedomWorks is well-positioned to ride the wave of citizen unrest that gave rise to the tea party – they’ve been making the case for less government for years.

So of course the first thing they were asked about was… the proposed mosque at ground zero.

Armey and Kibbe are both bright, so they immediately accused President Obama of weighing in on the mosque controversy to change the subject from “failed economic policies.”

Clearly, the President will score no political points with his lukewarm two-step of supporting the right to build a mosque while not supporting the mosque. But there is a real threat that the controversy could muddy the GOP’s year-long message that government is trying to do too much with calls for government intervention in New York zoning decisions. As Gov. Chris Christie notes, Republicans run a risk by trying to turn the mosque controversy into their central campaign platform – especially with so many other messages that could work better.

Republican hopefuls must strike a balance between reminding people that the President disagrees with them on the mosque and using it to underscore the inability to trust the federal government to solve problems:

“The President is commenting on a local government zoning matter instead of paying attention to national priorities.”
“The President is talking about mosques while the rest of the country tries to figure out how to get out from under the failed stimulus package and get the economy moving again.”
‘”The construction jobs building the mosque must be their best idea for job creation.”

See? This stuff practically writes itself, and would allow Republicans to pivot to more substantive arguments about why they will make life better for the American people.

The GOP has plenty to talk about as November approaches. Armey and Kibbe offer an excellent lesson: the mosque is a good conversation starter, but it shouldn’t dominate the discussion.